Directions Contact Us
Our Attorneys Directions
Home About Us Our Practice Area
Our Practice Area
Sheldon M. Greenbaum Profile
Martindale Profile MWG vCard
Email Me Print using PDF file
Areas of Concentration:
  • Commercial Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Matrimonial and Family Law
  • Wills, Trusts and Estates
  • Commercial Litigation

Bar/Court Admissions:
  • New York State courts, 1961
  • US Supreme Court, 1967
  • US District Court, Southern District of New York, 1973

Legal Experience:

  • Goldman & Greenbaum, P.C., 1981 - Present
  • Appel & Goldman, 1979 - 1981
  • Ellenbogen, Klein, Appel & Goldman, 1976 - 1979
  • Appel & Goldman, 1966 - 1976
  • Newman, Aronson & Neumann, 1961 - 1964


  • Brooklyn College (BA, 1955)
  • New York University School of Law (JD, 1960)

Bar Association Memberships:

  • American Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association

Significant Cases:

  • City National Bank and Trust Co. of Gloversville v. Gloversville Leather, Inc., 45 A.D.2d 508, 360 N.Y.S. 2d 79 (3rd Dept. 1974) (Appellate Court held that alleged course of conduct or practice between parties with respect to similar agreements prior to execution of disputed agreements may not be used to alter, vary, contradict or change legal obligations assumed by the parties under the disputed agreements.)
  • Sipzner v. Sipzner, 70 A.D. 2d 951, 417 N.Y.S.2d 773 (2d Dept. 1979) (Appellate Court held that where divorce judgment, providing that former wife could continue to live in cooperative apartment without obligation of paying any of its carrying charges, was ambiguous on issue of whether parties intended for wife's right of occupancy to be independent or instead linked such right to husband's obligation of child support, remand for hearings on such issue was required in husband's proceeding for modification of judgment after children became emancipated.)
  • Donnelly v. Donnelly, 76 A.D. 2d 879, 428 N.Y.S.2d 722 (2nd Dept. 1980)(Appellate Court held in a matrimonial action that if plaintiff felt aggrieved by the place of her deposition as chosen by defendant, a protective order might have been sought upon a proper showing of unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.)
  • Newman v. Newman, 89 A.D. 2d 1058, 454 N.Y.S.2d 689 (4th Dept. 1982)(Appellate Court held that, absent compelling circumstances, parties to a matrimonial action should not seek review of an order for temporary support. The best relief is a speedy trial, and nothing in this case justified a departure from this rule.)
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Personal Data:

  • Born May 22, 1933, Brooklyn, New York
  • US Army, 1956-1958; US Army Reserve, 1958-1960

The information on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon to make legal decisions by any party,
nor does it create the basis for an attorney-client relationship. This website is an advertisement for legal services.
Phone: (212) 953-9500 | Fax: (212) 953-9660 | Email: